On March 2, 2023 Bill Lee, Governor of Tennessee, signed a bill banning drag shows in public spaces, a law that more than likely will force drag shows to go underground in the state. Other states are also considering similar measures. In arguing for the justification for this law, State Rep. Jack Johnson, a Republican and co-sponsor of the bill claimed: "We're protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places. We're not attacking anyone or targeting anyone."
Is this law justified according to Mill's views -- or any other view we have examined? Examine at least one justification for legal coercion and argue whether this law is justified under that principle.
Based on Mills beliefs this law is definitely not justified. By banning drag the government is basically forcing people who enjoy it to not be able to see it anymore. Or making it so that people who work in drag clubs lose their jobs. This goes beyond legal coercion because it is making it impossible to participate or appreciate the art of drag. Mills would disagree for multiple reasons, but the main one being that it isn’t harming anyone in the community, it is only creating, maybe, some discomfort. Along with that the government implies that drag and the drag community is unsafe, which is the only reason this law was passed. This is another example of governmental exploitation and coercion, because the government says that drag is unsafe for families and kids and creates an environment where people believe that. The government is able to spread stereotypes and rumors that alienate an entire community, which is actually doing harm that a drag club or a person in drag isn’t. The Governor claims that no one is being targeted in the signing of this bill, but it is very clear what this bill is really trying to achieve, and that is the separation and discrimination against people in the lgbtq+ community. Drag is a big part of the lgbtq+ community and by banning it they are banning a part of the culture that is important. Going back to Mills he makes a very important point that if you don’t let people express their opinions you are missing out along with them. If you ban drag and drag clubs you are telling people that what they think is fun or enjoyable is wrong, how does that help anyone?
ReplyDeleteUnder the Offense to Others principle presented by Feinberg, this law would most likely not be justified. According to Feinberg’s principle, it is necessary to weigh the magnitude of the offense against its reasonableness. For example, people may often take offense to certain speech which expresses an opinion that contrasts with their own views. The offense caused can be severe, as people may feel that their way of living is being insulted or attacked. However, Feinberg’s principle asserts that this is not enough to justify a law that bans offensive speech. Speech has its own value, both for the person who speaks (expressing his or her self) and for society (aiding the search for truth). In this case, most would probably agree that the speech should be left alone, even if it can cause offense. The same cannot be said for this instance of drag shows, however. Based on the Offense to Others principle, if an offense can be easily avoided, it is not such a serious one. A public drag show can be avoided literally by looking away. Since it is so easy to choose an alternative path of action where one would not be offended, the magnitude of the offense is not so great. A proponent of this bill may respond that it may be hard to take one’s eyes off of a drag show. Even then, this attraction to the show would indicate a degree of interest in it. If one watches a show because it seems interesting, then any offense taken is “voluntarily assumed,” as Feinberg’s Volenti maxim states. If one knowingly chooses to partake in an activity that may be offensive, the actor who carries out the offense cannot be blamed. Furthermore, it is unclear exactly how much offense a drag show can be expected to cause to the typical passerby anyway.
ReplyDeletePerhaps an even stronger argument against the bill can be made when considering the reasonableness of the offense. Feinberg’s standards of personal importance, free expression, and social utility can be linked together. A drag performance is a form of entertainment and creative or artistic expression. Expression of this sort is of course of high personal value. I might slightly modify Feinberg’s standard of free expression here. He specifically states that expression of opinion should not be limited for fear of offense, but I might widen the scope to include the expression of sexuality and emotion, under which art and drag fall. The freedom to express oneself presents social utility as well, as a diversity of expressed opinions, emotions, and helps a society progress culturally and in its search for truth. Feinberg also establishes the standard of alternative opportunities. According to this standard, an offense is less reasonable if there are other settings in which it can be carried out to the same ends without causing so much offense. A performance is meant to be shared with others, and banning drag shows from public spaces would decrease its capacity to do so. Therefore, it is reasonable for the performance to be done in a public space. Finally, Feinberg’s states with his standard of malice and spite that an offense is unreasonable if it is done for the sake of causing offense. Drag shows, in general at least, are not meant to offend, but to entertain and to express creativity.
The reasonableness of the offense caused by drag performances most likely outweighs its magnitude according to Feinberg’s principle of Offense to Others. Thus, the Tennessee bill would not be justified under his view.
According to Mill, this law would not be justified. Mill is a strong believer in individual growth and excellence through the means of individuality. Mill believes that originality is essential in one's path to self-fulfillment and living a happy life. Not only would he argue that drag is expressing one's individuality (ultimately leading to one's overall growth and success), but he would say that the law has no groundwork considering it is not harming anyone. Mill believes that offense to others shouldn't involve government intervention (as long as the action isn't harming anyone) While Jack Johnson's justification is that drag is public indecency, Mill would argue that it is a public expression and that Johnson is basing a law off of offense to others. Mill believes that offenses are not as serious as harm to others and shouldn't be avoided because offenses are just feelings that vary from person to person, so why make laws off of them? He would say that Johnson is speaking about individuals (including himself) whose feelings are somehow made uncomfortable by drag shows, but those feelings are not enough to make a law out of. Mill would come back to self-expression and state that not only are the drag shows enhancing the individual's mind which ultimately creates a more intellectual society, but that drag shows aren't hurting anyone so there is no need for intervention of the government and definitely no place for a law against them.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAccording to Feinberg’s Offense to Others principle, Governor Lee’s bill banning public drag performances would likely be deemed unjust because its reasonability outweighs its perceived offense. In considering claims of offense, Feinberg claims we must weigh several factors to determine its appropriate legislative application. The first two factors (personal importance and social value) can be merged into an overarching idea of utility. Considering that drag is a form of entertainment that, along with all art, is used to express oneself, to performers, drag is a necessary aspect of their self-expression. Given that drag is an important vessel for self-expression amongst the LGBTQ+ community where self-expression is paramount, it can be understood that drag has high personal importance. To the audience, and greater society, drag performances are used to preserve culture and history, so therefore it holds importance and utility to the individual and greater society. While any artistic expression is ultimately subjective, it would be unreasonable to argue that it holds no utility to consumers and performers given its enduring history and fundamental goal of celebration and expression. Feinberg’s third stipulation concerns free expression. Feinberg holds a very strict opinion of expression, writing, “No degree of offensiveness in the expressed opinion itself is sufficient to override the case for free expression…” (Feinberg 44). No matter the offense that may be caused by drag, the Offense to Others principle could argue that its sheer status as a cultural, historical, and political platform to express opinions concerning liberation, equality, etc. is enough to outweigh potential offense. This is the most telling of where Feinberg would lie on this issue. Feinberg acknowledges the foremost importance of free speech so much as to claim that if it serves as an important form of expression, the degree of the offense is unimportant. Another key aspect of this paper on the topic of free speech is avoidability. While offensive speech and expression often occur in public, it is reasonable to ignore them and move past them. Feinberg’s fourth point asks whether or not the offense has alternative opportunities. While there are numerous ways to express oneself, drag has a unique history and culture behind it to the extent that its alternatives would erase an important slice of LGBTQ+ history. The penultimate factor of the Offense to Others Principle is the intent of the offense. The Offense to Others principle argues that if the offense is done with malicious intent it becomes unreasonable, and therefore could be fair to legislate against. Fundamentally, drag performances are means to celebrate a community and culture, not to provoke others. However, to offer some nuance, in today’s provocative political climate, it would not be unfair to say that there could be some lone actors who provoke anti-drag protestors with performance, yet foundationally it is a non-malicious practice. Finally, Feinberg questions the locality of the act before recommending legislation. I don’t know too much about Tennessee specifically, but a staple of Pride celebrations and parades is its drag performances that are done on public streets. The law in Tennessee would likely ban this public performance, however, the Offense to Others Principle would likely argue that since Pride is a set date and place, it isn’t an unexpected locality. In general, the Offense to Others principle would likely favor the drag performers’ right to perform because of its widespread influence, utility, and fundamentally inoffensive goals.
Drag can be looked at as an experiment of living. Through this viewpoint, Mills would not only state that the new Tennessee bill is unjustified, he would state that Drag is actually a necessity for a healthy society. In chapter three of On Liberty, Mills talks about how experiments with different lifestyles that do not harm others are needed to grow and evolve as both individuals and society. Some might argue that Drag is actually harmful; however, this ideology stems from Homophobia, which stems from miss information, hatred, envy, and fear. By banning Drag, the Tennessee government is harming people by making the judicial decision to make public Drag illegal. Drag Kings, Queens, and Rulers are one of the pillars of the LGBT+ community. They provide support to children who are struggling with their sexuality and may be considering making a decision that will forever alter the course of their life. By banning Drag performers, they are harming an entire community of people with hundreds of human beings.
ReplyDeleteIn this law, there is no possible legal, moral, or societal justification for this form of legal coercion. This law is not demanding people to give up their jobs; it is forcing hundreds of artists to give up a major piece of their identity and way of life. There is no justification for forcing people to become or be someone they are not. Throughout history, people have forced members of the LGBTQ+ community to pretend to be someone they are not through legal and societal coercion; this only occurred in western civilizations at first; however, with the expansion of Christianity, homophobia was spread to all corners of the globe. Under the same principle above from Mills, there is no justification for legal coercion to force people to live the life they want since it is an experiment of living and will benefit society; it will only benefit society, however if people open their minds up to different lifestyles.